/sci/ - Science & Math

Why does /sci/ hate philosophy when there have been so many mathematicians, philosophers and logicians who were also philosophers?

>>6223545
which is fairly easy to do bro. pic related.


some studies support the idea free will is a post hoc process, and decisions are not actually made

>>6084882
Surely you can't be serious.

Back in the old days, if you wanted to listen to some music, you had to walk down to the local tavern and listen to a live performance by some mediocre musician from your town. Now, with technology, we can carry around songs from best musicians in our pockets.


Yet with education, If I want a degree, I am still compelled to walk down to my local university to listen to a live performance by some mediocre professor. Yet technology could allow me to carry around lectures from the best professors in my pocket.

What's going on?

Imagine you are explaining a hypothetical situation to someone. You ask them if they would enter a virtual reality machine for the rest of their life wherein they would believe they are a successful actor.

They reply, "I would starve to death, not being able to eat or drink while in the machine."

Of course this is a moronic reply, as all you have to do is say "Imagine the virtual reality machine has a life support."

Is there a word for the error the moron above has committed? Namely, making an argument that focuses on some trivial aspect and avoids the actual issue, merely prompting you to alter your hypothetical slightly.

It's something people do all the time when I'm explaining hypotheticals, and it's very frustrating. I don't know why they do it. Perhaps most people just don't have very refined abstract reasoning skills and are unable to see past irrelevant details. Seeing past irrelevant details is a very important skill many people lack.

If I knew a word for this error, it would be easier to quickly refute the argument and move on. I could just say "that's an ambiguity fallacy" or something and not have to go through the process of altering my hypothetical.

>>5408755
>Logically, why is suicide...
>logic
>suicide

Stopped reading there.

>>5359167

Well done, infinity can be treated as a number.

A /sci/ related paradox : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox

>"Appeal to authority" is a fallacy because just because an authority says something is the case, doesn't mean it is. The authority could be corrupt or deluded.

>"Appeal to evidence" is a fallacy because just because evidence suggests something is the case, doesn't mean it is. The evidence could be a fluke or incomplete.

>>4954681

Mr. Russell would like a word with you.

/sci/
which course or what material in the /sci/ guide sticky would be closest to or provide me with approximately the same foundational material as is given in this course from my university (which is a pre-req for a C++ course I need but will be taking both together in fall):

I CSI 201 Introduction to Computer Science (4)
Computer algorithms and their representation. The principle of information hiding and its relation to program block structure. File structure and access methods. The efficient use of computational resources. Program development and style.
>May be offered in the summer.

What my fellow /sci/ undergrand students (physics, math, chemistry and biology) think of their personal futures?

/sci/
how do I show that the division theorem does not hold for polynomials with coefficients in ring = Z
i.e. not in a field. Just need to see an example to understand why not.

/sci/

What is a complete set of representatives for polynomials of degree \le 2 in F_2[x] modulo x^3+x^2+1

I thought it was all polynomials of degree < 3. This would give me like 27 polynomials by my reckoning. x^2, x, x^2+x+1, x, 1, 2, x^2+x, x^2+1 etc etc. all combinations. I am told though there are only 8 polynomials of degree less than 3 in F_2[x]. What am I not getting here?

Serious question, /sci/.

How much time do you spend browsing /sci/, and 4chan in general?

pic unrelated

>>4583163
i just remember the empty set and derive everything else from that.

I discovered a mental math trick. Do you know of any more?

<span class="math">2^{10}[/spoiler] equals 1024, which is about 1000. Easy to remember. If you can memorize a few other cases like <span class="math">2^{5}[/spoiler] equals 32, then it becomes easy to calculate large powers of two.

Consider <span class="math">2^{37}[/spoiler]. This equals <span class="math">2^{10}*2^{10}*2^{10}*2^{7}[/spoiler] which is about <span class="math">1000*1000*1000*(32*2*2)[/spoiler], which is a billion times 128, so about 130 billion.

The correct answer is 137 438 953 472. Remember that because you rounded 1024 down to 1000, the actual answer should be a little higher than your estimate.

I discovered a mental math trick. Do you know of any more?

<span class="math">2^{10}<span class="math"> equals 1024, which is about 1000. Easy to remember. If you can memorize a few other cases like 2^{5} equals 32, then it becomes easy to calculate large powers of two.

Consider 2^{37}. This equals 2^{10}*2^{10}*2^{10}*2^{7} which is about 1000*1000*1000*(32*2*2), which is a billion times 128, so about 130 billion.

The correct answer is 137 438 953 472. Remember that because you rounded 1024 down to 1000, the actual answer should be a little higher than your estimate.[/spoiler][/spoiler]

1+1=2
2+2=4
4+4=10
10+10=20
20+20=40
40+40=100

How long before I can say this and not get confused looks from the masses?

Bertrand Russell is bemused.

<span class="math">\pi = 2.718281828...[/spoiler]

I think I discovered something and want to know if it is true:

To find the mean value of a function from a to b, divide:
>the integral of the function from a to b
by
>a minus b

True, but what what are the odds of the only universe in existence containing life?

Given 1=2, prove:

1) 4=9

2) God exists.